Do you think American soldiers are put on too high of a pedestal

[Catholic_Lady]

So..yes, you're advocating letting the military do whatever it takes to end it quickly?

What kind of oversight do you think the military needs, if any?  I mean, if you do a flyover and see enemy combatants in a city, do you just bomb the shit out of the city, collateral damage be damned?  I mean..that puts a shockingly low value on the lives of any civilians or non-coms in the area.  Shit, why not just nuke Baghdad if it would've killed Saddam?

When I say the military wasn't "allowed to do what it needed to do to get the job done quickly" in the context of the Vietnam war, I wasn't imagining the US military to be made up of sadistic monsters.    

The goal should be to get the job done quickly while effecting the least amount of innocent lives possible in the long run. Obviously things need to be done within reason. The Vietnam war was not within reason, which as I said, only ended up hurting more innocent lives in the long run. And that's what I'm referring to here.

---

We were trying too hard to fight a nice, clean, polite war so that our government leaders wouldn't "look bad".

Scratch the surface just a bit, will you? The people in Vietnam wouldn't agree with nice and clean in any case. Especially those in Hanoi that got the shit bombed out of them. All in all the US dropped more bombs than in WWII on that small a territory.

I'm just repeating what my husband, who is in the military and has studied these things extensively, has explained to me in regards to the way the Vietnam war was fought. I trust his judgement on this.

[abaris]

I'm just repeating what my husband, who is in the military and has studied these things extensively, has explained to me. I trust his judgement on this.

Have you read 1984? If so, no, I don't trust military teachers on this one. I put my faith in independent historians. Fact, the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than they did during WWII.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm just repeating what my husband, who is in the military and has studied these things extensively, has explained to me. I trust his judgement on this.

Have you read 1984? If so, no, I don't trust military teachers on this one. I put my faith in independent historians. Fact, the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than they did during WWII.

No, but he has. He's a big fan actually, and always references it.

[abaris]

In any case, that's a report on Rolling Thunder by Stars and Stripes. Over 300.000 attacks in 3 and a half years. Do you really think, they all have been precision strikes.

On March 2, 1965, the U.S. commenced such bombing raids in earnest with Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive, joint Navy-Air Force campaign of more than 300,000 attack sorties over 3½ years.

http://www.stripes.com/news/special-repo...t-1.332208

Here's a picture of the paradise that was Hanoi after the US strikes - or more in the middle of being targeted.

[Opoponax]

Conservatives often strike me as bereft of the knowledge of the depth of human suffering.

I can tell you the vast majority of military members and their families are, themselves, conservatives.

They say the Air Force is the branch with the most liberals. Which is crazy, because even here it's rare to find one. Off the top of my head, I can think of like 3 out of everyone I know. My husband says there are always a ton of liberal jokes going around at his work. Especially around the time of the election.

I don't need you to tell me that. As I said before, most of the enlisted are apolitical. They're there for the job. The officer corps, and to a less extent, the noncoms are conservative because of job security and a sense of duty that's instilled as part of their training. The more conservative the government, the more money for the military. 

And how about you ask them this: "Do you want to be sent off to fight in a totally unnecessary war, or would you rather our politicians work out something sensible so that you don't have to go?" 

As a former soldier, I actually care about the members of our military. I think Afghanistan was necessary, so to send our troops off to fight there was not a reckless act. But Iraq? Or the shit that Trump looks to be starting with China and North Korea? Yeeaaaaaaaahhhhhh----FUCK THAT. 


Or maybe that's what this country needs. Maybe it needs a war where 100's of thousands of soldiers die in an unnecessary war, and a draft where anyone of proper age can be made to go to pick up the slack for the dead. Maybe it needs its private industry taken over by the government for war production following a formal declaration of war. Unfortunately, us smart people on the coasts would get hit first and hardest should bombs start falling here. But the sick thing about that is that the red state rubes would likely cheer that. If only Chinese bombs could fall on Kansas.

---

I believe so firmly that we need a peace time draft. Iraq either wouldn't have happened or it would've been done "right."

You mean like Vietnam was "done right?"

What? What the hell does Vietnam have to do with the second Gulf War?

---

...What exactly does "going all out" mean for a war?

I think of it as WW2 type strategic and tactical destruction.

This idea of sparing civilians is relatively new and it causes serious problems in waging war. 

The Japanese were far more fierce, dedicated, better trained, better supplied than any of these terrorist dirtbags today. But an entire nation was brought to heel through merciless strategic bombing and attrition on the battlefield. 

I think war is the most serious thing a nation can do. It's not about kickin' ass so that "foreigners" can feel the self-righteous wrath of the United States. War should only be undertaken when the security of the nation is truly at stake and nothing short of war can save it. And in such a case, the full power of the military should be unleashed. The only limitation is nukes and other weapons outlawed by convention---unless the other side uses them first. 

I am truly against war for all but the most necessary reasons. And if it does become necessary, then a formal declaration should be made, and the enemy battered to the point of unconditional surrender.

[pocaracas]

I'll just leave this here.
(well worth watching to the end)

[Minimalist]

What? What the hell does Vietnam have to do with the second Gulf War?

It was the last war we fought with a peace time draft.  It was a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.

[abaris]

It was the last war we fought with a peace time draft.  It was a clusterfuck of monumental proportions.

Do you notice, by the way, that it took 8 years and Reagan to start another war? After Grenada all bets were off for real. There hasn't been a single president not ambarking on yet another war adventure. Carter, to my knowledge, was the only one not going to war. If you don't count the attempt at freeing the hostages as such.

[BrokenQuill92]

It's more of the families then the vets than themselves that are the problems. Let you criticize the military in front of a family member of the Armed Forces in America... you will never hear the end of that shit

[Catholic_Lady]

On the other hand, the Church says this about war: 

Just War (2307-17)

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, "once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution. 

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war. 

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

- genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities; 

- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

...It's definitely a very difficult and delicate balance between trying to fight an effective war, while still upholding the dignity of human life. A very complicated issue indeed. Though I still stand by what I said regarding Vietnam. There's nothing that could possibly be worse than children from 4 decades later still suffering the effects of a war fought half assedly:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...fects.html 

...At least we don't still have the effects of world war 2 ruining the lives of the children today.